Citation Nr: 18150551 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-15 161 DATE: November 15, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to restoration of a 40 percent rating for degenerative joint disease is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to restoration of a 30 percent rating for a right shoulder strain (previously rated as loss of motion of the right shoulder) is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for right shoulder strain is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left wrist degenerative joint disease is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran has active duty service in the United States Army from August 1969 to February 1996. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of background, in March 2014, the Veteran filed a claim for an increased rating for his lumbar spine, right shoulder, and left wrist disabilities. Following the September 2014 rating decision, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement, also in September 2014. In March 2016, a statement of the case (SOC) was issued. In April 2016, the Veteran perfected his appeal (via a VA Form 9). Regrettably, the claims must be remanded for additional development. The Board regrets the delay but finds that due process requires further review by the RO. Appellants are entitled to initial review by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) of evidence added to the file by the VA, and waiver of such review may not be presumed. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304. Here, additional evidence has been added to the file by VA since the issuance of the March 2016 Statement of the Case (SOC). Notably, VA treatment records were submitted up to October 2018, to include updated treatment for the Veteran’s service-connected lumbar spine, right shoulder, and left wrist. Moreover, in the Veteran’s VA Form 9, dated in April 2016, the Veteran noted that following treatment in June 2014, an MRI revealed multilevel degenerative disc disease most prominent at L5-S1 and likely perineural/Tarlov cysts. The Veteran also stated that he was referred to the Bronson Neuroscience Center in Kalamazoo, Michigan for a consultation with a spinal specialist where he subsequently received treatment. These records have not yet been obtained; on remand, these records must be associated with the claims file. Further, in the Veteran’s April 2016 VA Form 9, the Veteran stated that his back pain has gotten worse and noted flare-ups of his back, to include the fact that it will “go out” when doing simple tasks around the house. The Veteran also noted that his range of motion in his right shoulder has decreased, preventing him from throwing a football overhead and stated that his shoulder clicks and catches when doing overhead work. Lastly, the Veteran noted that his left wrist pops out of place and that his range of motion when rotating is limited. He further stated that it is extremely troubling when writing or trying to lift objects. The Veteran was most recently afforded VA examinations in 2014. In light of evidence of worsening, see Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997), the Board finds that the medical evidence of record does not adequately address the Veteran’s current level of impairment, see generally Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281, 284 (1993). As such, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain new examinations regarding the current nature and severity of the Veteran’s lumbar spine, right shoulder, and left wrist disabilities. Upon review, it is clear that these matters have not been readjudicated by the AOJ in an SSOC since that time. Therefore, the appeal must be remanded so that an SSOC may be issued that considers all evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (c). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all outstanding treatment records relevant to his claims. All identified VA records should be added to the claims file. All other properly identified records should be obtained, to include those associated with the Bronson Neuroscience Center in Kalamazoo, Michigan if the necessary authorization to obtain the records is provided by the Veteran. If any records are not available, or the Veteran identifies sources of treatment but does not provide authorization to obtain records, appropriate action should be taken (see 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)-(e)), to include notifying the Veteran of the unavailability of the records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected right shoulder strain. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected left (dominant) wrist degenerative joint disease. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). (Continued on the next page)   5. After the above development and any additionally indicated development has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, to include the propriety of the September 2014 rating reductions for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine and right shoulder strain. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tiffany N. Hanson, Associate Counsel